Posted
by
CmdrTaco
on Monday July 18, 2011 @12:15PM
from the being-good-is-good dept.

mikejuk writes "Attachmate, who recently decided to dump the Mono development team, has done the right thing in allowing Miguel de Icaza's new company, Xamarin, a perpetual license to all the intellectual property of Mono, MonoTouch, Mono for Android and Mono for Visual Studio. This allows them to continue to develop and sell the products. Of course this income might just give them the time needed to support the software, which is a good thing, as Attachmate has also handed over the support for all existing customers to Xamarin."

Mono and by extension.net is a piece of shit and the only people who care are shills and the people that have been convinced by the shills to believe the hype. Even MS is abandoning.shit for javascript/html5 in their next OS. Hahahahahahaha

Well done. I too would post as AC if all I had to say was an idiotic, embarrassingly stupid comment like that.

as trolling as that was, it does seem to have a bit of truth - Microsoft has kicked Silverlight to the curb by targeting it pretty much only for mobile and news from inside Microsoft seems to indicate they are ditching.NET for html 5. Knowing Microsoft, however, and seeing their open attack on the security of WebGL, I expect them to port over their Silverlight Direct 3D code and use that instead of using WebGL because a browser without proprietary features would be very un-Microsofty.

and news from inside Microsoft seems to indicate they are ditching.NET for html 5

Do you have any idea how vast the.net class libraries are? It would literally be impossible to replicate all of that functionality on a platform like html without turning it into.net again. MS may be phasing out Silverlight in favour of html5 now that html5 has matured to the point that it is reasonable to do so, and for the web platform, where it makes sense to do so.

When Silverlight was launched, the only viable alternative was Flash, and that is what Silverlight was aiming to compete against. Unlike Go

news from inside Microsoft seems to indicate they are ditching.NET for html 5.

Where is this 'news from inside Microsoft'? Do you have any idea the vast amount of functionality that would be lost if you ditched.Net for HTML5? Ditching Silverlight for HTML5 seems logical but certainly not the whole of.Net.

Knowing Microsoft, however, and seeing their open attack on the security of WebGL, I expect them to port over their Silverlight Direct 3D code and use that instead of using WebGL because a browser without proprietary features would be very un-Microsofty.

I for one do see the danger in WebGL, i think it's a brilliant enabling technology (particularly friendly to me because i do most of my 3D coding in OpenGL) but that direct access from a webpage to the GPU (which is pretty much the most volatile piece of hardware in computers today)

Mono and by extension.net is a piece of shit and the only people who care are shills and the people that have been convinced by the shills to believe the hype. Even MS is abandoning.shit for javascript/html5 in their next OS. Hahahahahahaha

You're very wrong.

.Net is not bad at all, although not a solution for every problem. As an alternative to Java, it's better in every way except cross-platform compatibility. It obviously doesn't fill every hole that C++ fills.

That's like saying Java is superior to C because the latter being "portable assembly" was its whole purpose. Yes, it was so at the beginning, but the language and the frameworks built on top of them grew to encompass much more than that.

No, SuSE is one of the main reasons that Attachemate bought Novel. They have moved the SuSE headquarters back to Nuremberg Germany where it began, and the relationship with the OpenSUSE project is not expected to change.

Whether or not you think Mono has value, granting a perpetual license to it to someone who will do something with it was the right thing to do. Allowing a particular technology to be continued rather than just sitting on it because they have no use for it should be applauded. I only wish IBM had done this with OS/2 many years ago. Who knows what would have become of it.

eComStation is a "barely" warmed over (as in bugfixes only) release of OS/2 Warp 4 which IBM last shipped in 2001. Had IBM released the source code to someone who might actually continue development (even if not open-sourcing it) there's no telling what kind of OS it could have evolved into by now.

Actually, no, IBM still owns (and maintains) OS/2. Serenity is only an authorized re-seller, marketing it under the name eComStation. The only real enhancements made by Serenity have been in the form of additional device drivers and add-ons, mainly for the purpose of extending it's life.

Agreed. So many of the posts above this are just troll posts about Mono being shitty, and while I don't hold it in the highest of esteem, I think it's very good that they decided to allow a group of people that was actually doing something with the IP to do it, rather than just sit on it, make them reinvent the wheel, and possibly sue them afterwards.

I think it's very good that they decided to allow a group of people that was actually doing something with the IP to do it, rather than just sit on it, make them reinvent the wheel, and possibly sue them afterwards.

I agree entirely. However, there's a question that no-one seems to be asking: if Mono was as open, and as free of IP encumberances as Miguel has always maintained it is, then what IP did they need?

And if Attachmate held IP that prevented Xamarin from developing the project further, what does

> Some honest opinions of Mono might be helpful as I seem to be blissfully unaware of the problems related to it

What's wrong with it is it pollutes the Linux ecosystem with Microsoft IP.
Some think that's risky, and some of us don't care about that but just don't want to use anything that has any connection with MS.

I fear OS/2 was a failure for the desktop as soon as they did the Adds for OS/2 Warp. A bunch of people staring at a computer screen saying how cool it is then showing some funky color like they are on an acid trip. Most people at the time didn't know what an OS was they figured that once you turn on your PC you go to DOS prompt... then there were GUI enhancements like Windows 3.1. Earlier versions of OS/2 were the same way... seeming just a shell on top of DOS. So OS/2 Warp just an another expensive DOS Shell, that ran DOS Slower and all those newly available windows apps wouldn't all run at 100%.

When Microsoft released Windows 95 at nearly the same time, they did what apple does now. Show the product, show them how to use it, make it seem so much easier then before and what the other guys do. So when people got windows 95 they knew what it was and what it was going to do.

When Microsoft released Windows 95 at nearly the same time, they did what apple does now. Show the product, show them how to use it, make it seem so much easier then before and what the other guys do. So when people got windows 95 they knew what it was and what it was going to do.

No, OS/2 was superior to Win95 in nearly every way at the time. The reason for OS/2 demise had little to nothing to do with technology, but a combination of the "somewhat questionable" tactics MS used to force PC vendors to pre-install Win95 on every box shipped, and the ineptness of IBM's marketing.

Windows 95 also had a nicer migration experience from Windows 3.1. OS/2 Warp had a seperate Windows 3.1 mode, but switching back and forth was painful.

Wha? OS/2 Warp 4 could install directly on top of Windows 3.1 and Windows 3.1 applications ran seamlessly as if they were native OS/2 apps. What "switching back and forth" are you talking about? This didn't work for all Windows 3.1 applications (e.g. those with VxD drivers), but for most it was a no-brainer.

Oh yes. The single message queue issue. On this point I concede your argument. This was the result of IBM's (shortsighted IMHO) determination to not break compatibility with legacy (especially 16-bit) applications. This issue could have been easily resolved, at the expense of breaking compatibility, but IBM refused to deal with it (another of IBM's blunders).

IBM's ineptitude indeed... I remember being perplexed, back in the day, seeing IBM machines bundled with Windows. "They have their own system, supposedly it is very good, so why won't they use it instead?"

Apologies. I did note after I posted that I should have left the "No" off the start of the post. My intent was not to refute your statement, but rather to augment it with comments about the technical arguments. I completely agree with your position as to the marketing aspect.

Whether or not you think Mono has value, granting a perpetual license to it to someone who will do something with it was the right thing to do.

Just to clarify, this isn't a free perpetual license, it's a partnership. Attachmate is getting something in return, I presume a percentage of revenue.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. But the headline makes it sound like Attachmate is doing this to be fair or nice. This is just business. But it does make perfect sense for everyone involved.

If Palm did this with BeOS back about 5-6 years ago. BeOS didn't really compete with them. It did, however, compete with their biggest contemporary competitor and one of their future competitors that they should have seen would soon be a major rival. Had Palm given Haiku developers the same deal with BeOS, it would have been as disruptive for Microsoft and Apple as if a little enemy state were to hit the US with a high altitude EMP on a weekday.

if they "hoped" for it they sure didn't talk about it. From what I heard and saw, they used BeOS to pick at its bones and tried to get Garnet in shape as a good OS but it never happened. And then they kept changing the cradle and connector so that hardware vendors couldn't keep up with the changes and soon lots of software developers finally gave up as they kept screwing with the API's and what the Palm platform was supposed to be.If you were around back then, you too would understand why it's a joke when t

"Xamarin’s Mono-based products enable.NET developers to use their existing code, libraries and tools (including Visual Studio*), as well as skills in.NET and the C# programming language" link [xamarin.com]

Not something you see often nowadays, what with patents and copyrights being thrown back and forth in endless litigation and cutthroat corporate espionage.

That said, these guys are pretty awesome for doing that. In a way it lets us know they actually care about the improvement of the industry, even if they couldn't support Mono themselves. Round of applause ol' gents.

Without being privy to the agreement, I wouldn't assume it was "good will". If anything, it's probably just a business agreement where Attachmate stands to benefit if Xamarin succeeds. If they really wanted to be "good will" about it, they would provide royalty-free licensing to everybody instead of just Xamarin.

because one compiles to Objective-C and the other compiles to Dalvik... you think the work involved in those separate platforms should not be compensated? They could bundle them together and just double the price of the product.

you think the work involved in those separate platforms should not be compensated?

No, I think $650 for the bundle is a bit too steep for a microISV. As of right now, the best way I can see for a small developer to get a cross-platform phone application in front of an audience is to write the back-end in C++, write front-ends in Objective-C for iOS and Java for Android, and ignore Windows Phone 7.

650 dollars is too much to spend for a good idea? OK... then maybe you should develop your initial application as you state, then when you get successful, move to a tool set that provides a much higher throughput, making you even MORE money!

No, Mono serves the same purpose as Wine - it's there as a stopgap while you transition away from Microsoft to real portable languages. dotNET is "portable" code in the same way writing for the Microsoft JVM is portable, except this time they can't be sued for pulling a 3-E's.

I'm going to the special hell for this, but I misread the headline as "Attachment does the right thing for mono", and I thought to myself -- attachment is what causes mono. Well, that and kissing. Then I realized I was on slashdot, and nobody would get the joke...

And why would that be? Seems all I hear from those Mono lovers is that those who are opposed to Mono and De Icaza's little ploy have no clue. Yet I am still waiting on what the right clue is. Why is there no patent threat in Mono? Why is it safe to use? Why will I never be sued by Microsoft when I deploy/sell Mono crap? Give me proof and nothing but proof. Thus far all I hear is a thundering silence.

Microsoft's community promise... it is a legally binding statement about where you as a developer stand when using Mono.

If you have a problem with the win forms parts not being included, then don't use winforms. No one seems to give a shit about using one of 20 different tool kits with C++, but for some reason, not using winforms with C# on the mono platform is some sort of barrier that makes developing with it impossible.

There are very few parts that are not covered and those parts are not part of the ECMA standard. Seriously... there are replacements for WCF and WinForms and the other small number of namespaces that are not covered.

I think it's news when Attachmate do the right thing. I use some of their stuff here at work, and they always strike me as being in it for the bucks (yeah, we all are - but most of us pretend) and employing staff that appear to be me as being, well, a little back from the forefront of the industry.

Xamarin supporting Attachmate's Mono stuff means a lot to me, as a developer. I work for a company that does a lot of Mono-based consulting. This is going to sound like advertising, but having Mono for Android and MonoTouch makes life as a mobile developer easy. For example, my coworkers have been working on an iPhone application for a client using MonoTouch, using MonoTouch.Dialog. The client wanted a dual launch with an Android app, and since we were using all Mono-based projects in an MVC pattern, all we